FDA sidesteps safety concerns over TSA body scanners

Some professors recently expressed concern about the safety of the TSA's new X …

The United States Transportation Security Administration has recently come under scrutiny for, among other things, its use of X-ray full-body scanners in airports to see through clothes and to detect non-metallic explosives. But are they safe? A group of UC-San Francisco professors recently raised a number of safety concerns regarding these scanners. While the Obama administration attempted to address these worries, its assertion that the scanners are safe appears to fall short.

The TSA has slowly been implementing the use of X-ray scanners in airports (so far, 38 airports have 206 of the machines) in order to see through passengers' clothes and check them for explosive devices. Officials have asserted that the machines are okay to use on the basis of the everyday use of X-rays in medical offices. However, a group of four UCSF professors pinpointed several important differences between the medical X-ray machines and those used in airports. They described the issues in a letter to Dr. John P. Holdren, the assistant to the president for science and technology.

A normal X-ray image is a familiar sight—depending on the exposure, an X-rayed person typically appears only as a skeleton. This is because the X-rays used in those machines penetrate the skin and can only scatter off of the larger atoms in bones.

Unlike a medical X-ray, the TSA X-ray machines are a sci-fi fan's dream: they are lower-energy beams that can only penetrate clothing and the topmost layers of skin. This provides TSA agents with a view that would expose any explosives concealed by clothing. But according to the UCSF professors, the low-energy rays do a "Compton scatter" off tissue layers just under the skin, rather than the bone, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation.

When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn't shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is "likely breaking bonds," which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.

Because the X-rays only make it just under the skin's surface, the total volume of tissue responsible for absorbing the radiation is fairly small. The professors point out that many body parts that are particularly susceptible to cancer are just under the surface, such as breast tissue and testicles. They are also concerned with those over 65, as well as children, being exposed to the X-rays.

The professors pointed to a number of other issues, including the possibility that TSA agents may scan certain areas more slowly (for example, the groin, to prevent another "underwear bomber" incident like the one in December 2009), exposing that area to even more radiation. But the letter never explicitly accuses the machines of being dangerous; rather, the professors encourage Dr. Holdren to pursue testing to make sure that the casual use of these X-rays is safe.

Dr. Holdren passed the letter on to the Food and Drug Administration for review. But, in the FDA's response, the agency gave the issues little more than a data-driven brush off. They cite five studies in response to the professors' request for independent verification of the safety of these X-rays; however, three are more than a decade old, and none of them deal specifically with the low-energy X-rays the professors are concerned about. The letter also doesn't mention the FDA's own classification of X-rays as carcinogens in 2005.

The letter concludes that "the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use X-ray security system are minuscule." But the increased surface area and volume of absorption area, plus the frequency with which many people travel, suggests that this use at least bears further scrutiny. US pilots' associations have also encouraged their members to opt for the pat-down in the meantime.

Of course, these pat-downs have recently become rather invasive, so now travelers must choose between a little irradiation and being felt up by a non-doctor.

However, the TSA does have a potential solution in hand. Of the 68 airports scanning for explosives, 30 are using millimeter-wave scanners that don't use X-rays at all; they hit the surface of the body with safer radio waves. If the TSA committed to using only this type of equipment, it could avoid the safety concerns regarding the X-ray full body scanners completely.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

176 Reader Comments

You suffer more radiation exposure from the flight than from the scan.

Claims the company that makes the machines. There's at least a group of UCSF scientists who are not convinced. And the pilot's union.

No he is right, the machines when in proper working order expose you to less radiation then you get during a flight. The machines use a different energy of X-ray which is absorbed just in the skin (it doesn't mostly pass through you like cosmic rays), and in way that causes more potential damage. We don't actually know how much damage because know one has done any studies on it directly.

Then after all that, you still have to ask yourself: How often do the machines operate normally? Supposedly fault tolerant radiation based machines have killed people before.

Yah know. I took a train from Minneapolis to Chicago last year and frankly I was shocked at what I could bring onboard, could do, and frankly the freedom had. Bonus that my wallet wasn't raped when I brought bags onboard. Here on out if its possible train trips FTW.

Train trips while you still can, but there's a lot of money to be made on these things and you can be sure our taxpayer dollars will start being spent on train station installations once they're done with the airports. If anyone objects, a convenient failed attack on a train will take care of that quickly enough.

In short, I plan on making them as uncomfortable with the search as I am.

While it sounds fun, odds are you wouldn't make it on your flight and could face a $10k civil fine, whatever the fuck that means. I'm flying at Christmas because I bought the tickets in July but I'm done after that.

But I have no intention of refusing the scan or leaving the security zone without completing the screening process. They can demand I comply, but they can demand I not enjoy myself as long as I do so in a way that does not physically impede their work or violate the law.

I may be delayed, but I plan to make the experience very worth my time.

You suffer more radiation exposure from the flight than from the scan.

Dear Troll,

It is so good of you to stop by and try to allay our concerns with your erudite knowledge. However, pardon me if I am skeptical about your uncited claim, which I realize is a popular method of getting people to believe something is true, but often isn't, or is only a partial truth.

You suffer more radiation exposure from the flight than from the scan.

Dear Troll,

It is so good of you to stop by and try to allay our concerns with your erudite knowledge. However, pardon me if I am skeptical about your uncited claim, which I realize is a popular method of getting people to believe something is true, but often isn't, or is only a partial truth.

Sincerely,John Q. Public

Fortunately there are already studies on how much radiation you pick up while flying. Whether or not it's more than the scanners is hard to say without actual numbers from the scanner-side.

Notice how they never show fat people in these pictures? I want a fat woman to hide nail clippers or explosives under her breastand see if they show up on the scan. Only then will I be convinced they aren't entirely worthless.

I remember first hearing about this when I was in the US Navy, serving on Nuclear-powered submarines.

The inspection teams that flew around the world, checking on how the nuclear power plants were being operated, originally had their dosimitry devices issued before they left on their inspection tour, and had the devices read when they returned to their headquarters.

Once the Navy realized the long flights, especially Trans-pacific round-trips, were adding to the team's "occupational" exposure, they started having the dosimetry reset/zero'd when the team arrived on-board the ship to be inspected, and the on-board exposure readings recorded before the team left the ship = so none of the exposure from airline flights showed-up on their medical-record entries of "occupational" exposure.

I'm still not clear on one important point. At the airports that have these things, do ALL passengers go through them, replacing the old metal detectors, or is it just for the folks who flunk the metal detector or otherwise piss off the TSA agents?

Even if you successfully go through the machines without incident you can still be "randomly" selected for additional screening. So there's a chance of getting molested no matter what.

They will also pat you down if they have any question on what they see in the scanner.

The comedian Dave Barry reported on NPR his experience with being require to go through the pat down because of ambiguous picture on the scanner. He apparently suffered from a "blurred groin" when in the scanner. He also mentioned that the guy who gave him the pat down made a big deal about when he used the back or front of the hands. Also, while the guy was patting him down, another worker recognized him and mentioned how much a fan he is. Surreal.

Needless to say, Dave Barry had a few choice words about the whole process.

You suffer more radiation exposure from the flight than from the scan.

Dear Troll,

It is so good of you to stop by and try to allay our concerns with your erudite knowledge. However, pardon me if I am skeptical about your uncited claim, which I realize is a popular method of getting people to believe something is true, but often isn't, or is only a partial truth.

Sincerely,John Q. Public

Dear Pretenious Douchebag,

It is so good of you to stop by and try to speak for the greater community. However, pardon me if I point out that the average Ars reader is bright enough to have read the previous Ars coverage (linked in the story) that made the express statement you're questioning. Please get a clue before posting again.

...I don't recall the Oklahoma Federal building bombers being Muslim. Don't recall the Columbine High shooters being Muslim. Don't recall the latest loon who shot at a police officer five times and then ran being Muslim. In fact most attack on US soil have been from separatists or Christian extremists. Funny that.

...I seem to remember something along the lines of over two thousand deaths in one incident of militant Muslims, and having problems finding the Christian analog. The Civil War owns the death toll leaderboard though.

Well, Nagomo did say: "...in fact most attack on US soil..."

If your main criteria is body count, then the 9/11 attacks will be at the top of your list.

But most of the mass killings in the USA - while not having as much "mass" as 9/11 - don't involve muslims.

What bothers me, and I couldn't put my finger on it until I read comments on a blog the other day = we started doing domestic checks to catch copy-cats of the 9/11 attacks - which were launched domestically.

The last few "upgrades" to security have all been in response to unsuccessful attacks which originated outside the USA.

Little kids are subject to being molested by TSA screeners just like everyone else.

TSA Administrator John Pistole recently stated during an interview that children 12 and under wouldn't be subject to being graped...but considering how the TSA loves to "break" their own published rules in order to maintain a level of uncertainty so the Bad Guys don't figure out how to game the system, I wouldn't count on it.

...I don't recall the Oklahoma Federal building bombers being Muslim. Don't recall the Columbine High shooters being Muslim. Don't recall the latest loon who shot at a police officer five times and then ran being Muslim. In fact most attack on US soil have been from separatists or Christian extremists. Funny that.

...I seem to remember something along the lines of over two thousand deaths in one incident of militant Muslims, and having problems finding the Christian analog. The Civil War owns the death toll leaderboard though.

Well, Nagomo did say: "...in fact most attack on US soil..."

If your main criteria is body count, then the 9/11 attacks will be at the top of your list.

But most of the mass killings in the USA - while not having as much "mass" as 9/11 - don't involve muslims.

What bothers me, and I couldn't put my finger on it until I read comments on a blog the other day = we started doing domestic checks to catch copy-cats of the 9/11 attacks - which we launched domestically.

The last few "upgrades" to security have all been in response to unsuccessful attacks which originated outside the USA.

Little kids are subject to being molested by TSA screeners just like everyone else.

TSA Administrator John Pistole recently stated during an interview that children 12 and under wouldn't be subject to being graped...but considering how the TSA loves to "break" their own published rules in order to maintain a level of uncertainty so the Bad Guys don't figure out how to game the system, I wouldn't count on it.

Already the TSA has given a little ground after the flood of complaints, announcing that it has eliminated patdowns for children under 12 and will develop alternative procedures for pilots who are already subject to extensive security checks.

"We've heard the concerns that have been expressed and agree that children under 12 should not receive that pat-down," Pistole said on NBC's "Today Show". TSA had been reviewing the issue and Reuters last week reported about a father upset after his 8-year-old son was subjected to a patdown.

Little kids are subject to being molested by TSA screeners just like everyone else.

TSA Administrator John Pistole recently stated during an interview that children 12 and under wouldn't be subject to being graped...but considering how the TSA loves to "break" their own published rules in order to maintain a level of uncertainty so the Bad Guys don't figure out how to game the system, I wouldn't count on it.

Already the TSA has given a little ground after the flood of complaints, announcing that it has eliminated patdowns for children under 12 and will develop alternative procedures for pilots who are already subject to extensive security checks.

"We've heard the concerns that have been expressed and agree that children under 12 should not receive that pat-down," Pistole said on NBC's "Today Show". TSA had been reviewing the issue and Reuters last week reported about a father upset after his 8-year-old son was subjected to a patdown.

Having followed this article and related stories from both sides of the fence the following determinations become apparent.

Yes, perhaps these machines expose you to less radiation then the flight itself, however the article itself states that the dose is not the core issue, but athe frequency of exposure. Secondly, like the APA many pilots are standing against these machines and systems due to their frequent excursions to fly the aircraft proper. Realistically speaking on the pilots behalf it is not only unnecessary, but simply preposterous to subject pilots to these additional screening techniques. A pilot of an aircraft needn't explosives or weaponry to cause massive amounts of damage to bystanders.

Let's consider the TSA Agents themselves. Staff members who are executing their job to protect from incidents in the skies have thus far done a fine job without additional equipment and with a myriad of flights crossing the continent daily we have been free of issues for 9 years. I take issue with the fact that we are unaware of their hiring requirements for agents that examine a persons naked body, but despite the TSA's claim that

"Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer. -http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm However these machines have indeed done so. (http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-th ... body-scans)

Moreover since X-Ray backscatter has been brought to the forefront as machine of choice and TSA Agents already being exposed to X-Rays for much longer degrees of time were prohibited from procuring or wearing dosimeters as documented in this AFGE Congressional testimony (Having followed this article and related stories from both sides of the fence the following determinations become apparent.

Yes, perhaps these machines expose you to less radiation then the flight itself, however the article itself states that the dose is not the core issue, but the frequency of exposure. Secondly, like the APA many pilots are standing against these machines and systems due to their frequent excursions to fly the aircraft proper. Realistically speaking on the pilots behalf it is not only unnecessary, but simply preposterous to subject pilots to these additional screening techniques. A pilot of an aircraft needn't explosives or weaponry to cause massive amounts of damage to bystanders.

Let's consider the TSA Agents themselves. Staff members who are executing their job to protect from incidents in the skies have thus far done a fine job without additional equipment and with a myriad of flights crossing the continent daily we have been free of issues for 9 years. I take issue with the fact that we are unaware of their hiring requirements for agents that examine a persons naked body, but despite the TSA's claim that

"Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer. -http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm However these machines have indeed done so. (http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-th ... body-scans)

Moreover since X-Ray backscatter has been brought to the forefront as machine of choice and TSA Agents already being exposed to X-Rays for much longer degrees of time were prohibited from procuring or wearing dosimeters as documented in this AFGE Congressional testimony (http://bit.ly/djdhZB).

The TSA agents are to be commended for their behaviour thus far, but how long before someone with malicious intent controls the remote viewing room?

The TSA agents are neither federal nor state officers yet they are conducting a search in a manner that is more appropriate for search a detained individual. Thus the lower standards of ethics and employment requirements could eventually lead to issues with unqualified individuals conducting these more aggressive pat downs.

In regards to public transportation and high speed rail this is a non sequitur at best. There is no real issue with high speed rail or public transportation, but the issue with its utilization in lieu of air travel is two fold. Trains are indeed much slower and require additional infrastructure as well as a single point of failure (the tracks) to impede travel. While they may not require these additional screenings it is highly likely that should any issue occur such as an attempted or completed attack that these scanners and their accompanying searches/patdowns would follow in train stations.

While you would be hard pressed to find a citizen that is not concerned with the security of their fellow man/woman/child and their country it is my belief that these systems are redundant as current standards have functioned thus far, unnecessarily invasive and too potentially harmful for them to be utilized on anyone and that ultimately it will be no more effective at preventing terrorist attacks.

The TSA agents are neither federal nor state officers yet they are conducting a search in a manner that is more appropriate for search a detained individual. Thus the lower standards of ethics and employment requirements could eventually lead to issues with unqualified individuals conducting these more aggressive pat downs.

Lead to? More like it already has. The ACLU is already taking complaints of inappropriate groping during pat-downs to investigate whether a lawsuit is warranted. Hell, I know someone personally who said the TSA officer was getting a little too touchy-feely with his pat-down, and she had to threaten to scream rape in order to get him to make it a lot less personal. So much for same-gender screenings.

Interesting that they were installed at only 2 of the 3 major airports in the DC area and the one they didn't install them in, Dulles, is the busiest in the area and recently had a renovation of the security area where they could have installed them with less disruption.

The part that upsets me the most - and the part that is never discussed - is that the 9/11 hijackers DID NOT USE BOMBS OR WEAPONS to take control of those planes. I remember hearing that they used credit cards that were cut in half (to make the edges sharp) as weapons. How does adding backscatter radiation machines 9 years after the 9/11 attacks make us any safer than what we've been doing?

Yet, we are forced to give up our 4th Amendment rights in order to travel by air.

The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does not say "...against unreasonable searches and seizures unless you want to travel by air."

@iToast no issue with the rest of your post, but... you may want to remove the duplication.However, I do have an issue with:

iToast wrote:

In regards to public transportation and high speed rail this is a non sequitur at best. There is no real issue with high speed rail or public transportation, but the issue with its utilization in lieu of air travel is two fold. Trains are indeed much slower and require additional infrastructure as well as a single point of failure (the tracks) to impede travel. While they may not require these additional screenings it is highly likely that should any issue occur such as an attempted or completed attack that these scanners and their accompanying searches/patdowns would follow in train stations.

While I admit that it is not related to the issue of security of air trasnport, this is indeed highly relevant to the issue of the security of transport as a whole. If air travel was not the easiest, and sometimes only (in the US) way to get from A to B, securing planes would not be such a big deal.Now on to your assertions... I am afraid I have to disagree on most of them. No, trains are not much slower, high-speed trains are actually faster than flying for distances under 1500 miles. Look at travel times between major cities in Europe. No they don't require additional infrastructure, just re-purposing and modernization of existing infrastructure (said modernization being also needed to make it safer). No, they don't have a single point of failure. Airports are a single point of failure, planes can not take off or land without them. Trains can be re-routed through other paths, much like you do for your car. And even a very successful attempt at attacking a train would likely result in few casualties, even when traveling at high speed: it would only affect the actual car it was performed on (as the Basque terrorists have found to their dismay when putting bombs aboard TGVs).

They are different people? I thought "terrorist" meant "an individual who uses terror in an attempt to further his/her goals." By that definition, it means more than "brown people who hate the US." It covers a huge chunk of the military industrial complex inside the US as well as a saddening number of her politicians, news outlets and even corporate marketing departments.

So much for land of the free, home of the brave. Land of the corporate indentured servant and home of the scared shitless is sadly far more accurate...

if the little girl's screams of, "STOP TOUCHING ME!" while the inside of her thighs are being stroked does not make your skin crawl, well I don't know what to say to you.

.conal.

Sorry, but she sounds more like a little brat to me.

"BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" is no more moving for a liberal cause than it is for a conservative one.

Wow, you can't be serious. The "Think of the children" argument is usually invoked in a lame attempt to control something that is loosely or indirectly related to children behavior like video games, music and other media. This is a case where a child is being directly harmed by another persons actions. If you discard all preconceptions, bias's and politics and look at only the facts we will find a situation where a 3 yr old child is being molested by an adult against their will. This is wrong and shameful. There is no other way to slice it. If any other person were to put on a costume and feel up children, they would be in jail.

if the little girl's screams of, "STOP TOUCHING ME!" while the inside of her thighs are being stroked does not make your skin crawl, well I don't know what to say to you.

.conal.

Sorry, but she sounds more like a little brat to me.

"BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" is no more moving for a liberal cause than it is for a conservative one.

Yeah, how dare a small child not have the emotional framework to deal with what was likely a scary experience for her. Little shit should just let the strange, gropey, gloved adult touch her wherever she wants.

As our tech has improved and the ability to freely travel has become a necessary part of our day to day existence. The US has fallen into the worrisome trap of declaring that the ability to freely travel (via car, via plane, via train) is a "privilege" and not a "right". We allowed this to happen because we didn't like what some other people did with their travel so our majoritarian instincts to curb our neighbors undesirable behavior kicked in. Because it is a "privilege" granted by gov't, they can do whatever the hell they want with air travel. This is what most of us (maybe not Ars readers, but US citizens) asked for.

I've been very disappointed by the willingness of our government to impinge on freedom of movement and by the willingness of the people to accept it. I'm old enough to remember being taught during the Cold War that a big difference between America and the Soviet Union is that in America you can go wherever you want whenever you want for any reason you want, and you never have to hear "show me your papers." We Americans weren't treated like dogs and didn't need papers to go anywhere in our own country. Pfft. 25 years later, and we're showing our papers and our genitals. What's next, random vehicle searches at every state line?

Quote:

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?Captain Ramius: I suppose.Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.

Apocolypse Later! wrote:

To be fair, the interstate high-speed rail projects, at least in the midwest, were recently cut thanks to the 2010 election and its Tea Party/GOP types who will make cuts everywhere except in Defense. Hundreds of jobs were lost and the program cancelled. Thanks voters.

To be fair, the voters were reacting to a resounding lack of progress on...anything...under the existing Democrat-controlled regime. Both houses of Congress and the Presidency in control of one party, and they can't even pass their own legislative priorities without compromises that effectively gut them? Look at the centerpiece of the Obama/Democratic agenda, healthcare reform--the public was promised a real healthcare support infrastructure, and thanks to an unwillingness by Obama and other Dems to spend political capital and take chances they were instead given a mandate to buy their own insurance (with subsidies for the poor, but still, a pile of horseshit compared to a real healthcare overhaul). Dems also blocked any chances at immigration reform that didn't include a "path to citizenship" for illegals which most Americans oppose. What exactly did they accomplish in the last 2 years that shouldn't have been accomplished better with one party in control of Congress and the Presidency? They got what they earned, a slap for not fulfilling their campaign promises on some issues and not following the clear will of the people on others. While I'm all for greater funding for mass transit, real healthcare reform, and a slew of other Democratic agenda items, like most Americans I'm also for others traditionally on the Republican menu. Failure by one party in power to pass meaningful legislation means, as it should, that it's time to give the other a bite at the apple. Expect more Republican gains on the next election cycle unless Obama and the Dems can take part in some meaningful legislation between now and then.

The part that upsets me the most - and the part that is never discussed - is that the 9/11 hijackers DID NOT USE BOMBS OR WEAPONS to take control of those planes. I remember hearing that they used credit cards that were cut in half (to make the edges sharp) as weapons. How does adding backscatter radiation machines 9 years after the 9/11 attacks make us any safer than what we've been doing?

Yet, we are forced to give up our 4th Amendment rights in order to travel by air.

The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does not say "...against unreasonable searches and seizures unless you want to travel by air."

Perhaps we should stop searching for weapons and start searching for terrorists?

Buy purchasing an airline ticket, and checking into the airport, you are giving legal consent to the search. The airport security search is no more a violation of fourth amendment rights than a police officer search of your vehicle after you say "yes officer, you may search this vehicle."

Buy purchasing an airline ticket, and checking into the airport, you are giving legal consent to the search. The airport security search is no more a violation of fourth amendment rights than a police officer search of your vehicle after you say "yes officer, you may search this vehicle."

I would feel a lot more confident about the security system if the TSA and CATSA (Canadian version) stopped using the criteria of breathing and walking for hiring. You can buy all the gadgets you want, but when the screener has the mental capacity of a pea, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry, but when your security relies on the mental capacity of a reject from Deliverance, your security doesn't mean squat.

Buy purchasing an airline ticket, and checking into the airport, you are giving legal consent to the search. The airport security search is no more a violation of fourth amendment rights than a police officer search of your vehicle after you say "yes officer, you may search this vehicle."

You are correct, squidz, that is their explanation. The sad part about it is that this "line of reasoning" is that it is not far-fetched to consider the following scenario:

By purchasing a car, registering it and yourself with the state and county, you are giving legal consent to the search of the vehicle at anytime for any reason, merely for driving it.

By applying for a Social Security Card, registering your identity with the state, and walking on the public sidewalks, you are giving legal consent for the search of your person.

By puchasing a bus pass, waiting at the bus stop, and entering the bus...etc etc. etc

Abridgements of constitutional rights (the 4th amendment) and natural rights (freedom of movement/association) are easy to justify away, but incredibly difficult to reacquire once surrendered. Travel by flight or by car should never have been allowed to be considered a privilege.